If they are people who want to get rid of all guns, they are a very tiny group with an extreme opinion. So tiny, they aren't worth arguing against especially when it's not a valid option. That's a strawman.

Police with no guns? Hunting with no guns? No more black market? It's literally impossible and impractical to get rid of all guns. There will always be circumstances when the lethal force of a gun is necessary.

"No guns at all" is not part of the debate.

They're a tiny, but very vocal group. And they'll get media attention because the media loves to bump ratings by stirring **** up by putting the two extremes on the air against each other.

__________________
I don't care about your deathmatches. Don't even ask. I'll just report it as spam.

He's one of those crazy anti gun nuts who thinks anyone who owns a gun just wants to kill others and feels all guns should be confiscated.

Well, don't you know that every gun has a microchip in it and when you touch the gun you get the smallest of subliminal zaps? The more times you handle guns the more times you get zapped until the signal turns you into a blood-thirsty raving lunatic.

Japan and Australia are not America. Our heritage, culture, and ideas are different from them. Very very very different in regards to Japan. We are a country who in less than 300 years was founded on violent revolution then torn apart by civil war. Our people have been spoon fed a steady diet that it is freedom or death. BS romanticized history is thrown at us. The media stirs up crap for ratings and viewers. People are uninformed. Millions think this country is under constant threat of a violent overthrow by imaginary Hitler. Communism and socialism will sneak up and rape us from behind. Hell on earth will rise. We are the last bastion of God's holy plan for earth. etc etc etc We are a very paranoid people. So what works in another country won't work in another country, because no two countries are alike.

That's not a good excuse. They go to war just like us and commit the same kind of crimes. The fact of the matter is that they ban guns and don't have the same kind of problems that we do. Stop trying to excuse it off as a cultural thing. The major difference is the laws.

Australia doesn't have near the population, distribution of population, population density, etc. They speak English, that is pretty much what we have in common.

Japan, has all of those things similar to us in their urban areas....but their history, their culture, their entire way of life is unbelievably different from us and to compare us is like apples and oranges.

I'm sorry that is such a ridiculous comparison. You cannot just compare countries, hell you can't even compare us with this issue with Canada. There are soooo many other imporant, imperative, crucial issues that come into play besides some statistics and laws.

Japan has a higher population density and Australia has a lower population density than the United states. I don't think population density is a factor here. These are weak excuses. The real problem here is our reluctance to enact true gun control reforms and that the gun lobby is at the heart of that interference. They need to get out of the way so that it can be done.

That's not a good excuse. They go to war just like us and commit the same kind of crimes. The fact of the matter is that they ban guns and don't have the same kind of problems that we do. Stop trying to excuse it off as a cultural thing. The major difference is the laws.

Ok first I am going to excuse your dismissal of the impact culture and social zeitgeist have on a people. Then I am going to point out that the Japanese culture is so very different from Western Culture that their overall view of guns is very different from ours.

Secondly, you are ignoring social structure, economic factors, historical factors, race issues, social density, the identity of the people as a single organism, and the singular identity of the individual, the differences in our law code, our social code, our tabboos, our beliefs, politics, psychological state of the people, the media, the system of government, drug flows, black market, under the table guns sales, the apathy of the people, the natural tendencies of our species etc etc etc.

All this stuff makes every single culture on this planet different in unique ways. What works with one will not necessarily work for another. If you think we are all carbon copies and react the same way to everything I suggest you invest a small amount of your time in social studies. You can take our guns, but I assure you crazy bob down the street will take a knife to someone. The crime may not be as big, but that is purely up to the imagination of Bob. Bob can take 10 minutes raid his kitchen and blow up a school. Bob can poison. The mind of a violent person is only limited by the extent of its imagination, and the social structure around it.

Violence doesn't stem from guns. Violence is enabled by guns, yes, but it is enabled by countless other factors and objects. Violence stems from us. To assume that taking all guns would be a magical cure-all is ignoring countless human factors.

We do need to limit guns. But of equal importance is looking at the people and fixing issues in our society. There is a reason why most successful species do not tolerate killing of their own. It makes for a weak social structure. Yet, we allow it, and sure as **** it is hurting us. The problem is much more than just guns.

Well, don't you know that every gun has a microchip in it and when you touch the gun you get the smallest of subliminal zaps? The more times you handle guns the more times you get zapped until the signal turns you into a blood-thirsty raving lunatic.

Ok first I am going to excuse your dismissal of the impact culture and social zeitgeist have on a people. Then I am going to point out that the Japanese culture is so very different from Western Culture that their overall view of guns is very different from ours.

Secondly, you are ignoring social structure, economic factors, historical factors, race issues, social density, the identity of the people as a single organism, and the singular identity of the individual, the differences in our law code, our social code, our tabboos, our beliefs, politics, psychological state of the people, the media, the system of government, drug flows, black market, under the table guns sales, the apathy of the people, the natural tendencies of our species etc etc etc.

All this stuff makes every single culture on this planet different in unique ways. What works with one will not necessarily work for another. If you think we are all carbon copies and react the same way to everything I suggest you invest a small amount of your time in social studies. You can take our guns, but I assure you crazy bob down the street will take a knife to someone. The crime may not be as big, but that is purely up to the imagination of Bob. Bob can take 10 minutes raid his kitchen and blow up a school. Bob can poison. The mind of a violent person is only limited by the extent of its imagination, and the social structure around it.

Violence doesn't stem from guns. Violence is enabled by guns, yes, but it is enabled by countless other factors and objects. Violence stems from us. To assume that taking all guns would be a magical cure-all is ignoring countless human factors.

We do need to limit guns. But of equal importance is looking at the people and fixing issues in our society. There is a reason why most successful species do not tolerate killing of their own. It makes for a weak social structure. Yet, we allow it, and sure as **** it is hurting us. The problem is much more than just guns.

Look, it is true that the cultural values of the Japanese and Americans from the United States are different. There are similarities. They see the same types of crimes, enforce their laws with police, use telephones and the Internet to Communicate. The same types of behaviors you see here with repect to the law are the same in Japan (you enact a law and most people comply with it). It is not like because we prefer meat and potatoes over fish and rice that we can not adopt similar gun control regulations and not have the same results. If that were the case, then we could never have international treaties between nations. The culture angle is ridiculous. The Australians differ in culture with the Japanese as much as we do, but yet they have gun control and are not having the trouble that we are anymore. See how that doesn't make sense?

Should we dismiss the opinions of GLAAD lobbyists in the argument over gay marriage because of their obvious pro-GLBT bias?

Should we dismiss the opinions of green energy company lobbyists in pushing for solar grants because of their obvious pro-green bias?

Should we dismiss the lobby of any group or industry for promoting the beliefs/goals of that group or industry because they may be biased in regard to their goals or values?

Or, should we just say that the lobbyists of groups or industries we disagree with (and only those) should be dismissed?

I don't think the opinions of the GLBT, pro-green, pro-labor, pro-civil rights, nor pro-voting rights lobbies ever get dismissed because right-wing radio and F-News always talk about them 24-7. I also don't believe that the influence that these same lobbies has contributed to the number of crimes and deaths committed as have the influence of the NRA or the gun industry, which is why I am apt to call your post a false equivalency.

I don't think the opinions of the GLBT, pro-green, pro-labor, pro-civil rights, nor pro-voting rights lobbies ever get dismissed because right-wing radio and F-News always talk about them 24-7. I also don't believe that the influence that these same lobbies has contributed to the number of crimes and deaths committed as have the influence of the NRA or the gun industry, which is why I am apt to call your post a false equivalency.

You learn a new term, then turn right around and misuse it. Neither the NRA nor the gun industry is responsible for violent crime anymore than the alcohol industry or the automobile industry is responsible for drunk drivers.

__________________

What is a Survivalist?

Someone who hates the woods so much that they train to be able to get out of it if they ever happen to be caught out there.

I don't think the opinions of the GLBT, pro-green, pro-labor, pro-civil rights, nor pro-voting rights lobbies ever get dismissed because right-wing radio and F-News always talk about them 24-7. I also don't believe that the influence that these same lobbies has contributed to the number of crimes and deaths committed as have the influence of the NRA or the gun industry, which is why I am apt to call your post a false equivalency.

And you are more than apt to be wrong. fanboii asked why the gun lobby doesn't get dismissed because of their pro-gun bias. I gave examples of groups or industries acting to further their interests and asked if he would dismiss them because of their bias. There's no false equivalency (and you don't in fact know what that means), because I'm giving other examples of groups and industries that lobby to further their interests. How the idea of Group A acting in its self-interest (in this case, lobbying) be falsely equivalent to the idea of Group B acting in its self-interest? In both instances, it's a group acting in its self-interest by lobbying!!

__________________

May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. -- Jack BurtonI'm a Believer.Want to join the Revolution? Support the FairTax.

And you are more than apt to be wrong. fanboii asked why the gun lobby doesn't get dismissed because of their pro-gun bias. I gave examples of groups or industries acting to further their interests and asked if he would dismiss them because of their bias. There's no false equivalency (and you don't in fact know what that means), because I'm giving other examples of groups and industries that lobby to further their interests. How the idea of Group A acting in its self-interest (in this case, lobbying) be falsely equivalent to the idea of Group B acting in its self-interest? In both instances, it's a group acting in its self-interest by lobbying!!

Actually you said "should we" (not should he). The answer is exactly as I said it, and yes this is a false equivalency. These groups already get such dismissal by the right wing media.

Is this another case of dnno being wrong (based on all the hidden messages I see from him in this thread and then the responses to him) and refusing to admit? Good thing I don't read anymore of his stuff. Best to just ignore him since he's totally inept on this subject.

You really can't compare Japan to America. Or really, Japan to any country. Place is pretty unique.

Maybe if America had outlawed guns in the 1600's like Japan... But history panned out differently.

Actually America has a thing to do with Japanese gun laws, since they outlawed them during the occupation, and a lot of modern legislation goes back to those laws.

Certainly you can compare the two since they are both developed nations and trade partners (in fact some of the business and manufacturing principles that the Japanese use were developed by Americans). That should imply that they have something in common. Japan has had a ban on small-caliber rifles since 1971. Australia banned guns just recently (around 1996), so your point about needing a 400 year head start is moot.

You learn a new term, then turn right around and misuse it. Neither the NRA nor the gun industry is responsible for violent crime anymore than the alcohol industry or the automobile industry is responsible for drunk drivers.

That's not a true statement. Both the NRA and the gun industry have a history of re-arming criminals that goes back to at least 1965. The gun industry (in particular Winchester) pushed for an amendment to the 1938 Federal Firearms Act in order to protect themselves to give them relief from disability of not being able to buy and posses guns. As it turned out back then their parent company, Olin Matheson was convicted on felony counts of illegal kickbacks to foreign companies and it impacted their firearms division's ability to sell weapons. This relief program also gave individuals convicted of felonies the ability to apply for the same type of relief. The NRA expanded the program to include individuals convicted of gun crimes when they backed the Fire Arms Owners Protection Act in 1986. The Violence Policy Center found that there were a number of former felons that applied for relief were re-arrested for crimes that included: attempted murder; first degree sexual assault; abduction/kidnapping; child molestation; illegal possession of a machine gun; trafficking in cocaine, LSD, and PCP; and, illegal firearms possession or carrying. Even in the subsequent years after the FOPA, attempts to de-fund the relief program have been resisted by the NRA and the gun lobby. Yes, the NRA and the gun industry are responsible for those crimes since they have supported the relief of convicted criminals. They even try to silence government funded research on gun safety and have the government destroy records on gun purchase background checks in order to cover up the truth.

Certainly you can compare the two since they are both developed nations and trade partners (in fact some of the business and manufacturing principles that the Japanese use were developed by Americans). That should imply that they have something in common. Japan has had a ban on small-caliber rifles since 1971. Australia banned guns just recently (around 1996), so your point about needing a 400 year head start is moot.

Right, because Australia's history is so much like America's. With the violent revolution against Britain, centuries of turf wars with Indians, the British, the French, and Mexico.

Though if you want to start a gun buy back scheme like Australia, that would be interesting. Only problem is that it would bankrupt the country, since there are more guns than people in America. There are more kangaroos than people in Australia.

Point being, none of these countries were ever as well armed as America. Not even close.